3 ms·
This argument is absurd. It takes the obvious truth that causation will certainly lead to correlation and blindly flips it around and claims it's somehow profou
by wai1234 10y ago
This argument is absurd. It takes the obvious truth that causation will certainly lead to correlation and blindly flips it around and claims it's somehow profound. Just bad reasoning from beginning to end. The correct reasoning - causation leads to correlation - is the basis of all science. When scientific theories are evaluated, the razor is a check that the theory correctly predicts observed results. You can't cook up a theory that fits a set of already known data and claim you have formulated a causal relationship unless you can then predict the NEXT results over a substantial set of trials.
- rileymat2 10y agoI think the author is trying to say that coorelation is the starting point in the hunt for causation in many investigations.
- wai1234 10y agoIf so, the author says it poorly. Yes, you wouldn't look for a causal link without correlation, that would be insane, but the existence of correlation tells you only that there might be causation, nothing more.
- Barrin92 10y agobut there is no other way to actually show causation. You can't 'look at' causation. You can look at a million chess games, you'll never be able to see the rules themselves. All you see is correlation between how the pieces move in every game and from this you can try to figure the rules out, if any exist at all. So while weak(!) correlation does not imply causation, strong correlation pretty much does. It's how the scientific method works. We can't look behind the curtain and take a look at the rule sheet.